Remember the time when science fiction writers and futurists were talking about permanent vacation? We were told that technology would reduce our workloads to the point where we would all have more holidays and leisure time?

Yeah right.

One in five workers now plan to stay in touch with the office during their vacation this year, according to CareerBuilder.coms annual vacation survey. And the scary part is that one in 10 (9 per cent) say their employers expect them to check their voicemail while they're away and 14 per cent say they'll feel guilty about missing work.

CareerBuilder.com's Rosemary Haefner says that mobile phones, pagers and the Blackberry have created an e-leash that keeps you chained to your desk or workplace.

There could be a host of reasons why this is happening. A lot of it might be about guilt. Some people worry that things will fall apart when they're not around. Others might think if things go well, it might send a signal that they're not needed.

"Unused vacations, techno-stress: The situation has grown so dire that the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers offers wrecked and wasted white-collar types a cold-turkey detox program where they can hand in their cell phones and PDAs for lockup in the hotel vault during their stay. More than 1,000 guests have written the hotel to express their thanks. Hyatt hotels offer a BlackBerry-thumb massage.

"Then there's the kick-out-the-door approach. Companies such as PricewaterhouseCoopers track employees who have not taken enough vacation, sending reminders to them and their supervisors that they should do so. At Intel Corp, all full-time employees get two consecutive months of paid time off after seven years of work. They can even stack the sabbaticals on top of their regular vacation. Going in a totally different direction, Netflix Inc has done away with vacation time altogether. The company tells workers that so long as they get their jobs done, they can take as much time off as they like."

So should companies here start looking at similar approaches? How much holiday time do you have banked up? Do you keep in touch with work when you're away? Or do you ditch the Blackberry, mobile phone and pager? And do you ever get an attack of the guilts when you take a day off? How do you deal with it?

The report found that life for most people in their 60s and 70s was now characterised by good health, independence and quality of life. It also found that 11 per cent of people in their 70s were doing some form of paid work, either full-time, part-time or casual. The same for one-third of those in their 60s and nearly two-thirds of those in their 50s.

Certainly the retirement picture is changing but it takes longer for older workers
to get jobs. Out in the job market, they don't get much respect, reports the
New York Times

Certainly more of them are finding work but the changes do raise
a number of questions.

Are we talking here about quality work, or will the modest security be replaced by insecure employment in low skill and high-risk jobs? And will retirement
of some kind be replaced by unemployment rather than work? Just some of the questions raised by Swinburne University of Technology professor of employment policy Philip Taylor.

Peter Drucker, the management guru's guru who invented or predicted most of the management theories and trends that have reshaped corporations and who died in 2005, warned that the ageing population worldwide is the big crisis facing economies and society. Drucker said it would reshape organisations and the way they are managed.

Also consider this: more people getting into their 70s, 80s and beyond means we have to get used to a greater incidence of Alzheimers, strokes, osteoarthritis and vascular disease. It will not only put more strain on the health system. It also means that more employees will have to
take time out as carers for ageing parents.

To the older employees out there, how do you find the workforce? And are you planning to work into your 70s? More to the point, do you think you'll be forced to? If you're running a business, would you take on older workers? If not, why not? Is the ageing population having an impact on your lifestyle and work?

The study shows there's a drop in productivity when people turn up to work with all sorts of conditions, from allergies and arthritis, to heart problems and back, neck or spinal problems. Lower productivity because they're putting in the hours but not functioning properly.

According to the economic analysis done by consultants Econtech, which you can read here, the direct costs of presenteeism to Australian employers is estimated to be around 1.9 per cent of GDP.

Craig Bosworth, public and industry affairs manager for Medibank Private says that the study shows that measures taken by employers to address the problem, like flu shots, discounted health insurance and employee fitness programs, would go straight through to the bottom line.

But does presenteeism reflect a deeper problem about the presures on today's workforce? In an era when companies are running lean, and there are fewer bodies around, is there more pressure on people to turn up to work sick?

So how often do you turn up to work sick? How many of your work colleagues do it? How sick do you need to be to stay away from work? And are you more inclined to chuck a sickie if you're not happy at work?

But some businesses are going even further by subsidising their employees to do their bit to save the planet.

Insurance giant Swiss Re this year launched a "COYou2 reduce and gain" program which provides its employees with rebates to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from such sources as heating, travel and electricity. The rebates can extend to low-emission hybrid cars, public transport, and installing solar panels or heat pumps.

It makes perfect sense for an insurance company to be setting the pace here with a United Nations backed report warning that climate change is the most serious issue facing insurers and society at large, particularly with losses from extreme weather events scaling new heights.

On a smaller scale, KPMG Australia announced last month that as part of its plans to go carbon neutral, it would help its employees reduce their carbon footprints through measures including subsidising their purchase of carbon credits.

Of course, it's all well and good for big companies to do this, but should smaller business be doing the same? Whose responsibility is it - the boss or the employee? What should businesses do to help their employees reduce their carbon emissions at home and on their way to work?

Working on a project that looks like going the way of the Hindenberg? You're not Robinson Crusoe.

I have come across research showing that the success rate of projects can be as low as 20 per cent. The same issues come up time and again: projects don't come in on time or on budget, they can't meet business requirements, there are turf wars between business units, business units dig their heels in and unleash campaigns of passive resistance, and there's zip accountability and ownership.

According to a study, cited in The Wall Street Journal, about eight out of 10 professionals and managers reckon they're involved in a project likely to bomb. And six out of 10 said they knew the project would be a dud before its launch or soon after.

Part of the problem might be that many projects are political because they're about tackling problems inside organisations (like outdated technology or waste and duplication) and dealing with managers tied up in subterranean treaties, rituals and arrangements aimed at preserving the status quo. And most project managers, trained in areas like target setting, budgeting, scheduling and monitoring, aren't that political.

As one project manager, who has been hauled in to fix things at some of Australia's biggest companies, said to me: "It's like running on quicksand. You don't run for more than three feet and then you start sinking. You get deeper and deeper until you're up to your neck in politics. Then my agency comes along with a big stick, pulls me out and sends me off running to the next one."

So are you working on a project that looks like turning into a Hindenberg? What are the problems? Do you always run into the same roadblocks? How do you get around them?

Do Workplace Minister Joe Hockey's claims about Julia Gillard's appearance say anything about our attitudes towards looks? Not only in politics but in the workplace?

No Johnny Depp, Hockey said he wasn't doing as well in the polls because he was "not as pretty" as his opposite number.

The Opposition's accountability spokeswoman Penny Wong leaped into the fray today, suggesting looks are irrelevant. "I'm not going to comment on how Joe Hockey looks, but I will say this, if politics were a beauty contest I'm sure there would be many of us who wouldn't be in parliament.
I hope the Australian people are smarter than that, I think they are."

But do Hockey's comments reflect an increasing emphasis that people are putting on looks?

Researchers asked the question: to what extent do you agree or disagree that society believes it is acceptable to tease people about certain hair, facial or bodily characteristics.

The results suggest that anything goes. Tall people cop it, but so do the vertically-challenged. Baldness is a butt of jokes but blondes and red heads don't fair much better. Underweight people do just as badly as the heftier ones.

The study found that men were more likely to have a go. But it also points out there can be a fine line between good natured teasing and bullying and between joking banter and political correctness.

All this seems to line up with an economics study, which I blogged about here, that shows good-looking people are treated better and are more likely to get ahead.

Personally, I question a lot of this stuff. Comments about people's looks were not invented yesterday and people have been doing it for centuries. And to paraphrase Penny Wong, if work and life conditions boiled down to a beauty contest, many of us wouldn't have a job. Or a relationship.

Do you notice people get teased more these days? Whether it's about their body type, hair or even their dress sense? Have you been teased at work? How do you deal with it? Does it get to you or do you just shrug it off as something that's not your problem? And what's your take on Hockey's comments?

Want a "better'' life"? Or at least another one? Welcome to Second Life where you become a hunk with a killer six-pack or silicon-inflated babe in the form of an Avatar. You can rock on at great bars and wild parties, buy virtual goods, get into virtual real estate speculation and use your skills to make money in the form of Linden dollars (The exchange rate fluctuates but generally $L250 = $A1).

Or if you want, there's virtual sex and gambling.

The take-up of Second Life has been nothing short of extraordinary.

According to mind-blowing stats published in Mother Jones, the current population of virtual worlds is estimated at more than 20 million, roughly the same as Australia's population. About one in five gamers say that the virtual world is their primary place of residence. The real world (otherwise known as "meatspace") is where you sleep and eat. Virtual-world gamers play an average of 22 hours a week but one in three spend more time inside the game than at their real jobs and two in five say that if they could make enough money inside the game they would quit their jobs.

And its going to grow. Technology analyst outfit Gartner claims that 80 per cent of active Internet users (and Fortune 500 enterprises) will have a
second life by the end of 2011 and it's advising companies to consider it as a space to do business. Businesses that have already moved into Second Life include Reuters and Reebok.

It's a point that hasn't been lost on governments either.

There are claims that the easy-cruising standards of Second Life regime may soon become a haven for money launderers, fraudsters and terrorists to hide and move funds. Britain's Fraud Advisory Panel is pushing for real-world financial regulations extending into Second Life and similar virtual worlds.

And Second-Lifers may soon up having to pay real taxes with inquiries underway on how governments should treat money made by Avatars.

So what's driving the popularity of SL? Do people just want to have fun? Or could it be a failed first life? Are you considering getting into it? For the Second Lifers, how much time do you spend in the alternative universe? What do you get from it? If it was profitable, would you chuck your job in?

No workplace is perfect. And right around the world, people always seem to be whinging about their jobs. But where are the world's unhappiest workplaces? Who are the world's biggest whingers?

Australia is right up there, according to new research.

The global study by the FDS research group (it's a massive file so be patient) found that Australians were the fifth worst whingers, just behind the yanks (4), Swedes (3), and Brits (2). The biggest whingers are the French, notwithstanding the experiment with the 35-hour working week. One suspects that the election of Nicolas Sarkozy and the likely shift to more Anglo-Saxon economic practices is not going to make French workers any happier

The study, which draws on the attitudes of thousands of workers in 23 countries, also raises the question of whether job satisfaction has anything to to do with money. Places like Thailand and Russia seem to have happier workers. Or at least ones that are less inclined to carry on about their jobs. But incomes there are much lower than in Australia, US and Britain. Go figure.

So what's making people so unhappy? Drill into the data and you might find some answers there.

Australians scored relatively high in complaints about the number of hours they worked and the time it took them to commute. Also, they seemed more likely to say they were not enjoying the work they were doing.

On the question of work-life balance, Australians were less likely than their counterparts in other countries to say it was about good co-operation with their employer and about the boss understanding their issues at home. Also, they didn't seem to put much stock in employers being aware of their needs, particularly when compared with workers in other countries. Which suggests that bosses and workers here have quite a few issues to sort out.

So why do you think Australians figure so highly in the misery stakes? Is the number five spot justified? Do we deserve to be higher? What are your biggest complaints? Or is whingeing about work just a natural thing?

Last week, we had news that Melbourne was among several of the world's cities that would get money to make our buildings more energy efficient. All part of a climate change initiative led by former US president Bill Clinton. Clinton has persuaded top finance institutions to fund a multi-billion dollar program in 15 cities around the world to retrofit buildings, improve energy efficiency and make them greener. Other cities taking part in the plan include New York, Chicago, Houston, London, Berlin, Tokyo, Rome, Toronto and Mexico City.

Projects could include projects include replacing heating, cooling and lighting systems with energy-efficient networks, making roofs white or reflective to deflect more of the sun's heat and putting in sensors to control more efficient use of lights and air conditioning. It's a good start. Experts say that buildings are among a city's worst contributors to greenhouse emissions. Buildings, they say, account for 50 percent of energy use in newer cities and more than 70 percent in older urban areas.

But the question is whether the Clinton plan is enough, and whether we have the time to wait.

Consider for example New York mayor Michael Bloombergs idea. In addition to creating greener buildings, he wants a congestion pricing model where the city slaps fees on drivers coming in to certain parts of NYC from 6 am to 6 pm on weekdays. It's similar to the scheme operating in London.

On top of that, we have the report in today's Age that the Victorian government's five-star green building rules are a joke.

Now we learn that new houses using up more energy and producing more greenhouse gases than existing homes. According to the report, residential greenhouse emissions from new housing are growing at 532,000 tonnes a year. Increased emissions from lights, particularly halogen lights, are linked to the expanding size of new houses.

So it seems all the voluntary efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions have made little headway. For all the rhetoric, there's a question mark over whether people are prepared to make sacrifices to save the planet.

Should owners be forced by law to make their buildings more efficient? And do we need a congestion levy here to ease pollution? What other suggestions would you have?

Plenty has been written about how the generation gap is transforming the workplace.

The 20-somethings are marching into the workforce and we're told they bring a completely different set of values, writes Fortune magazine's Nadira Hira:

"Generation Y: Its members are different in many respects, from their upbringing to their politics. But it might be their effect on the workplace that makes them truly noteworthy - more so than other generations of twentysomethings that writers have been collectively profiling since time immemorial.

"They're ambitious, they're demanding and they question everything, so if there isn't a good reason for that long commute or late night, don't expect them to do it. When it comes to loyalty, the companies they work for are last on their list - behind their families, their friends, their communities, their co-workers and, of course, themselves."The piece makes out that this is the most high-maintenance workforce in history.

Personally, I think it's crap, just a wet dream of consultants and marketing executives trying to flog their expertise to business.

Research shows there not much difference between the values, attitudes and behaviours of the different generations. I look at this research in a piece I wrote here.

Whenever I read about alleged generation gaps and conflicts, I always think back to the quote commonly attributed to Socrates:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

No, he wasn't talking about Gen Y. So what's changed?

But then, that's me. Do you think Generation Y is different? Are they changing your workplace? If they are, how is it different?

According to the survey, more than one in four (27 per cent) nominated disorganised rambling meetings as their pet hate. And 17 per cent nominated people who are always interrupting and and trying to dominate, 16 per cent said they hated those constant mobile phone interruptions and 9 per cent said they had an issue about people dozing off. Interestingly, fewer seemed to care about meetings that started late or people checking their Blackberries.

Some rules about how meetings should be run. First, you should only have people who really need to be there. Otherwise, you're stuck with a bunch of prisoners. Secondly, every meeting needs an agenda and a specific purpose. And finally, it's always a good idea to have a time limit, the shorter the better.

Still, I was having coffee with a manager of a medium-sized business this morning who told me his outfit has two formulas. "We have them at a coffee house or we have them standing up," he said."It works for us."

So what do you hate most about meetings? And how would you make them better? Or is it a lost cause?

Is beauty only skin deep? Or do Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie clones get preferential treatment? Either at the workplace, the shop counter, the restaurant or in general? Do they get better jobs? Are people more willing to help them?

In this game, there are five players who score points by answering quiz questions. At the end of four rounds, the player with the most points must choose one of the remaining players for elimination. When it gets down to two contestants they have to play the Prisoners Dilemma game where they choose to either share or try and grab it all.

The researchers found there was found no reason to discriminate in favour of attractive players. There was no evidence of superior performance or that they were more cooperative. But they found that average attractiveness seemed to increase steadily over rounds one to three and that the most attractive player was the one chosen to be in the final, at the end of round three. The least attractive player was almost twice as likely to be eliminated at the end of Round One than any other player.

The researchers conclude that beauty might be skin deep insofar as it has it has nothing to do with skill or your level of co-operativeness. But it does make a difference, even down to how much money you might earn.

"We find that beauty is indeed only skin-deep, and has no implications for a person's performance or their cooperativeness," the academics write. "Nevertheless, it is an attribute well worth having, even from a narrow monetary standpoint. Attractive players earn a substantial premium, that arises from the reluctance of other players to eliminate them."

So do better looking people seem to get better breaks at your workplace? Do they get better treatment? And is this as discriminatory as racism or sexism? Let's hear some stories?

One of the things we did not see in last week's Budget was a carbon tax. Speaking to the National Press Club last week, Treasurer Peter Costello warned that this sort of tax would result in big increases in power and petrol prices.

But with climate change dominating the political, economic and legal agendas all over the world, the issue is unlikely to go away.

Over the in the US, former vice president Al Gore has claimed that businesses are treating the atmosphere like an "open sewer" and says that the only way to stop them is with a pollution tax. Gore argues that you would offset it with reductions to payroll tax. Exactly how that would work, and whether that would flow through to prices are the great imponderables.

"At the core of this would be an environmental audit to find the size of your carbon footprint. Every year (or perhaps more often) you would be required to complete a carbon return (online of course - you would not want to increase your use of paper). That should include everything you do, so points would be scored for owning a second home (treble points if it's abroad) putting out too much domestic rubbish, for using too much energy heating your house, for using the car too much, for driving a Chelsea tractor, for flying too often and too far, for not installing double glazing, for failing to write on both sides of the paper, for not registering for the postal preference service and so encouraging the production of junk mail, for using timber from non-renewable sources, for leaving your television and stereo on standby, for using an electric screwdriver or food mixer, for failing to visit your local recycling centre, for buying any product that has been freighted in by air...Your return would give you a score on a scale of (say) 0 to 200 (let's not worry about the fine details here). That then becomes a percentage and is applied to your tax bill for the year."

The other argument for a carbon tax is that it could be cheap insurance for a massive risk of potential catatstrophic costs, especially when compared with the premiums for the much lower risk of house fire or burglary. Age columnist Ken Davidson explores the issue here.

Should there be a carbon tax? Or are there better ways of addressing climate change? And would you be prepared to pay more for your petrol and power to save the planet?

Mine are totally predictable: the early morning coffee (black no sugar), driving everyone mad by blowing long notes, playing harmonics, endless scales and John Coltrane exercises when I practise sax - at about 10 pm, reading before bed etc.

Everyone has their own routine. That's why we love those huge research studies that look into how and why we do things.

The giant ad agency BBDO WorldWide has come out with one that's nothing short of ambitious.

The study, published in BusinessWeek, slots every person on the planet into five easy behavioural categories: "preparing for battle" (the morning ritual), "feasting" (reconnecting with your tribe over food), "sexing up" (primping), "returning to camp" (leaving the work place) and "protecting yourself for the future" (the ritual before bed).

These rituals can mean anything. Returning to camp can involve meeting up with friends for drinks after work, to slumping in front of the TV at night with chips and a beer. Sexing up can mean anything from teenage girls asking each other what they're going to wear to lining up a date.

The researchers surveyed 5000 people in 21 countries about their daily rituals. They came up with some interesting findings. True, I don't know what you do with the information but interesting nonetheless.

Like more than half of all Indian respondents surf the Web before leaving the house, as opposed less to one-third of Americans. And 84 per cent of Polish consumers shower at night, 44 per cent of Brazilians read in the bathroom, women in Columbia, Brazil and Japan apply make-up in their car at twice the global rate and 41 per cent of Chinese respondents schedule sex.

So what are your rituals? What sort of things do you need to do to get you through the working day?

The problem is that there are lots of first-line managers who might be brilliant technicians. They get promoted to a senior role and suddenly they're out on their own, thrust into a world where resources are squeezed, the pressures intense and the politics toxic. It's the kind of role where support and training are important.

I have already done a blog post looking at this problem for new managers.

The Novations study suggests that we under-estimate the amount of training senior executives are getting. And it also tells us that senior managers are probably ambivalent about training. They would say they have too many other things to do.

It's an issue raised by Professor Russell Ackoff in his great little book Management f-laws. The book sets out 81 laws that show why all the conventional thinking about management is a crock.

One of those F-laws is "The higher their rank, the less managers perceive a need for continuing education, but the greater their need for it."

Unless, of course, you hold the learning session in an exotic resort. Preferably with a golf course, restricting the learning to only a few hours a day and letting them bring their wives, partners or a facsimile thereof.

So if you're in a senior role, how much management training do you get? Could you do with more? Do you have time? And for those lower down the food chain, do your senior managers need more training? In which particular areas?

"If one needed guidance on whether the budget was primarily fashioned to seduce voters in this election year, a single detail might do the trick. Five in every six dollars of all the money earmarked by Peter Costello for spending next year is for personal tax cuts. In short, Costello is offering the least subtle but most reliable of all persuasive techniques: bribery.

"The Treasurer, however, is much smarter than to leave this bald fact hanging like an unfortunate odour in a theatre (and besides, he insists, cutting tax does not amount to spending - it is, he says, simply a matter of not taking people's money). He has crafted a budget he can sell as responsible over the longer term."

So are you a winner from the Budget? Are you better off, or is there no change? More to the point, will it change your vote?

Ever been fired from a job? Do you talk about it at the next job interview? Or do you pretend it never happened?

According to a report commissioned by Linkme.com.au, explained here, more than 34 per cent of Australian workers say they have been sacked at least once and most of them are reluctant to talk about it with their next prospective employers.

Interestingly, one in three say they were dismissed without any notice, more than 15 per cent were escorted from their company premises immediately and about 9 per cent said they were sacked with a phone call.

Obviously, getting fired from your previous job is a red flag in any interview, the elephant in the living room. So how what are the best strategies when you go for the next job?

"If you were downsized rather than terminated for cause, you can easily explain the situation. Even if you secretly believe that personal problems at work were behind the termination, you can benefit from the company's official explanation," she says."If your division was sold or your department was eliminated, discuss the reasons that the entire group disappeared rather than your specific situation.

"If your termination was related to 'boss problems' or other interpersonal difficulties, use a 'mismatch' explanation, but never blame your former employer for the problem. For example, you might say, 'My boss was a real hands-on type manager, and I prefer to work more independently.' (Translation: My boss was micromanaging my work.) Always stay close to the truth. Don't say there was a mismatch with authority if your real problem was with a colleague, and don't complain about co-workers if you had difficulties with clients.

"To avoid future trouble, compare past problems concerning your work style, goals and needs with what a potential employer can offer you. To do that, you have to know what you really want and be willing to express these preferences in interviews."

Sound advice. Would you add anything to that? What's been your experience? Do you mention it, and put some sort of spin on it, or do you avoid it altogether? And if you're interviewing someone and the subject comes up, how do you as prospective employer usually handle it?

Climate change issues now seem to be at the forefront of legal, economic and political news worldwide this year so Treasurer Peter Costello is expected to announce some green initatives tomorrow night.

And with environmental issues seen as the big negative, the Howard Government will no doubt be pushing to neutralise them in an election year so it can pull the polls back.

Ceiling insulation subsidies and various R&D initiatives are expected to be in the Budget, reports The Age. Farmers are also looking for drought funding, according to other news reports.

The big issue to look out for is what will happen to the subsidies that encourage the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

Will the Budget, for example, do anything about fuel tax credits for the mining sector? Will there be a rethink of fringe benefits tax concessions for company cars? The Australian Conservation Foundation says that tackling those issues would have the biggest impact.

So what green initiatives do you want to see in tomorrow's Budget? Which ones are you expecting? And will a greener Budget influence your vote?

Sick of the 18 hour days and no time to chill out with family and friends? In Britain last month, they had National Downshifting Week.

Downshifting, where people slow down their lives by working less and buying less, definitely seems to be a trend capturing attention around the world.

Four years ago, an Australia Institute study found more of it was happening. Reducing working hours was seen as the most popular way to downshift but changing to a lower-paying job, stopping paid work and career changes were also common.

People could do it for many reasons. Some want a more balanced and fulfilled life and spend more time with their families. Some want a less materialistic and more sustainable life. Then there are those who have made the change following a crisis, such as a severe illness, the death of someone close or a marriage breakdown.

So how to downshift? The National Downshifting Week website offers suggestions for individuals and companies. The Toronto Star also provides some tips for living a simpler life. Like booking a half-day off work and spending it with a loved one, doing volunteer work, sharing bulk purchases with neighbours, car pooling, eliminating three non-essential purchases this week and cooking a meal entirely from scratch. Better still, spend some time in the kitchen cooking with your partner or family.

Still, downshifing does raise some questions.

Like, for example, how do you convince your employer you want to take a lesser job, title and salary without appearing suspect? Some tips from The Wall Street Journal's CareerJournal.com might help. You can start by defusing any suspicions that you want to jump ship or that you are losing interest in the job. And make it clear what your expectations are. Another suggestion is to go and work for a nonprofit (although some of my friends at nonprofits talk about hideous hours).

So have you downshifted? Are you thinking about it? Why do you want to do it? How are you going to go about it. Give us some tips.

Let's put that to one side. Yes, he handled it badly and he was undone by his stupid dishonesty. But did outing him end a stellar career? And what does that say about homosexuality in the business world?

"Men like John Browne have had the misfortune to rise to power and prominence during a time of transition," writes Parris. "Their careers straddle two eras. When he was (a) young man, just starting, there is no way he would have made it to the top as an openly gay junior executive. The choice was between celibacy and a discretion bordering on deception.

"As the years rolled on and attitudes began to shift, it was too late for him to shift with them, disavowing impressions he had allowed to arise at the start. Now he was too exposed. It would be news. It would not be news his shareholders and colleagues would have liked. He became stuck with a version of himself that he would never have chosen if he had known how times would change. And he persuaded himself that it was in the interests of his company, too - and Britain, for BP pays a bit of all our wages - not to spoil the picture the world had of him.

"There must be thousands of senior men, and a few women too, in Lord Browne's position, but undiscovered."

"The career path inside a multinational oil company follows a route through the world's petroleum production centres, taking in the Middle East, Russia and sub-Saharan Africa, locations where homosexuality is at best socially unacceptable and at worst punishable by death. BP's roots are in Iran, which has executed thousands of gay men since the Islamic revolution."

But there is a broader question of whether there is, as Collinson calls it, a "pink plateau", a glass ceiling that makes gay men and lesbians virtually invisible in the boardrooms of big companies.

So is there a "pink plateau"? Society's attitudes have changed but is business lagging? Let's hear some views and personal stories.

Would you like to be paid for watching a telephone or robot? How much do you make advising business people on etiquette? Hey, at least it pays.

Fortune magazine contributor Stanley Bing gets some tips from readers on where the BS jobs are in his blog.

The list includes a robot operator. Get paid to sit and watch a robot all day, record the stats and call maintenance every now and then. Or there's the poor sod who has to sit in a small room with a desk and phone and take the call every time some unseen person in another part of the building leaves the desk. Or the payphone account manager who has to monitor the number of calls made from payphones.

Some of the jobs on the list sound fairly standard and it reads like the person at work is having a whinge. But there are some real hoots.

The most insane job I had was to sit and check the arithmetic of people in accounts. In the past, Bing has talked about roadkill collectors and people flogging Yoga franchises. But do you have any to add to the list? What's the most ridiculous job you've had?

With reports coming in of a widening pay gap between men and women, both in Australia and overseas, two academics have come up with a provocative solution.

Economics professors Alberto Alesina from Harvard and Andrea Ichino from the University of Bologna say women should pay less tax, and men fractionally more. They explain it in the Financial Times and in their paper Gender based taxation.

Basically, their argument boils down to this: the supply of labour of women is more responsive to their wage post-tax, so a reduction in taxes would increase the labour participation of women substantially. Doing that, they reckon, would have the same impact as affirmative action policies, quotas or subsidised childcare.

But isn't this discrimination unfair? "We do not believe so," they write in the FT. "There is nothing more hypocritical than to invoke equal treatment in some areas (taxation) for those who are not treated equally in many other areas (the labour market; sometimes in the family allocation of tasks, such as rearing children or caring for elder family members). We already have a host of policies that are not gender neutral. We could eliminate many of them by adopting a simple differentiation of tax schedules for men and women. And do not forget that a large part of the redistribution of the tax burden implied by this proposal would occur within the same family: the husbands of married women who choose to work would also benefit from their wife earning a higher take-home salary."

Personally, I have a few problems with the argument. First, many women go part-time when they re-enter the work force post-baby. I'm not sure whether a tax cut would change that. Secondly, should single fathers also get a tax cut?

So what do you think of this idea? Could it work? Is it fair, bearing in mind that in many cases the husbands and families of the women would benefit from the cut? If it won't work, how would you fix the pay gap?